Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:55:44.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Role of BCA in TIGER grant reviews: common errors and influence on the selection process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2015

Anthony C. Homan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As directed by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) created the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program for surface transportation infrastructure projects. Through 2013, there have been five rounds of the grant program. TIGER uses a multi-step competitive application process to award surface transportation funds. TIGER applications are initially screened by US DOT’s staff of technical experts. For projects forwarded by the review team, US DOT economic experts then review the applicant’s benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and attempt to determine the likelihood that the benefits exceeded costs (i.e. not the applicant’s self-determination). The final awardees are then selected by a Review Team of Modal Administrators and DOT Office of the Secretary level officials. The purpose of this paper is to discuss many of the common errors in preparing, and issues in reviewing the applicant’s BCA and in making a net benefit determination. A secondary purpose is to determine if the most deserving projects, based on an applicant’s BCA and the likelihood that benefits exceeded costs, are more likely to receive grant funding. We do so for the second through the fifth rounds of the program.

Keywords

benefit-cost analysisARRATIGER grants
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 111 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2014

References

Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis concepts and practice. Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2005). How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects? the case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011a). Competitive grant programs could benefit from increased performance focus and better documentation of key decisions (GAO-11-234). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/317196.pdf.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011b). High-risk series: an update (GAO-11-278). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/315725.pdf.Google Scholar
Homan, A., Adams, T., & Marach, A. (2014). A statistical analysis of the role of benefit-cost analysis in awarding TIGER grants. Public Works Management and Policy, 19(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Notice of Funding Availability for Supplemental Discretionary Grants for Capital Investments in Surface Transportation Infrastructure Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (NOFA 2009). (2009). Federal Register, 74(94), 23226–23237.Google Scholar
Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investments Under the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2010 (NOFA 2010). (2010). Federal Register, 75, 30460–30480.Google Scholar
Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investments Under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 2011 (NOFA 2011). (2011). Federal Register, 76, 50289–50312.Google Scholar
Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investments under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 2012 (NOFA 2012). (2012). Federal Register, 77(20), 4863–4880.Google Scholar
Notice of Funding Availability for the Department of Transportation’s National Infrastructure Investments Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (NOFA 2013). (2013). Federal Register, 78, 24786–24794.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2003). Circular A-4. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.Google Scholar
Quantitative Micro Software. (2007). EVIEWS User’s Guide I. Irvine, CA: Quantitative Micro Software.Google Scholar